1987 PLP 670 (SCMR)

Izhar‑ul‑Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Miss Lubna, Advocate and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record Mrs. Shaista Qaisar, Advocate (with permission of the Court) for Respondent No.

1. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and

3. Date of hearing: 20th December, 1986. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑ This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order, dated 12‑10‑1986 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner against an order passed by the Collector in a maintenance case.

2. The petitioner married respondent No.1 on 19‑12‑1981. About two months later, that is, on 21‑2‑1982, he sent her a notice of divorce. After the issuance of this notice he reconciled his differences with her and resumed his marital ties. She became pregnant. On 19‑6‑1982 he served her with another notice of divorce. While the proceedings were pending before the Arbitration Council, respondent No.1 moved all application for maintenance. By an ex parte order, dated 30‑10‑1983 the Chairman of the Arbitration Council fixed the amount of maintenance at Rs.2,000 per month and called upon the petitioner to pay to her a sum of Rs.44,000 which represented the arrears for the period from 19‑12‑1981 to 19‑10‑1983 in addition to future maintenance. The petitioner challenged the order of the Chairman in revision before the Collector. By an order dated 17‑7‑1984 the Collector accepted the revision petition holding that the Chairman had neither correctly determined the period for which the maintenance was payable nor his decision with regard to the rate of maintenance was fair or justified. He then transferred the proceedings to Chairman of the Arbitration Council Halqa No. 99 for a fresh decision in the matter.

3. Consequent upon the order of remand made by the Collector the Chairman of Arbitration Council of Halqa No. 99 held the proceedings afresh and apart from recording the statements of the parties also heard the evidence led by them. By an order dated 27‑11‑1984 he held that the divorce granted by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 had become effective on 28‑2‑1983 and that she was entitled to maintenance for the period from 19‑12‑1981 to 28‑5‑1983 which presumably included the period of Iddat. He fixed the rate of maintenance at Rs.2,

000. He then worked out the amount of maintenance to which respondent No. 1 was entitled at Rs.34,

693. The petitioner once again filed a revision petition before the Collector to challenge the order of the Chairman. By an order dated 11‑3‑1986 the Collector partly accepted the revision petition inasmuch as he merely reduced the rate of maintenance to Rs.800 per month. The petitioner challenged the order of the Collector in writ jurisdiction in the High Court but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from the order of the High Court.

4. In support of this petition the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the rate of maintenance is too excessive as his monthly earnings do not exceed Rs.690 per month. To substantiate his assertion in this regard he has placed on record a salary certificate issued by the Lahore Development Authority where he was employed as a work charge surveyor. According to this certificate for the period between 16‑1‑1980 and 31‑10‑1980 he was earning a salary of Rs.650 per month and in the period between November, 1980 to April, 1981 he was drawing pay at the rate of Rs.690 per month. It is to be noticed that this certificate relates to the period prior to his marriage with respondent No.

1. As such, it cannot furnish a guide for determining his income during the period for which he has been directed to pay maintenance. On the other hand, it is stated on behalf of respondent No. 1 that apart from working in the Lahore Development Authority, the petitioner was also running a shop as a plumber. There is no sure indication with regard to his earnings from the shop. However, taking all the circumstances into consideration we are of the opinion that an amount of Rs.500 per month would represent a fair amount for maintenance to respondent No.

1. Accordingly, we convert this petition B into appeal and modify the order of the Collector and direct that for the period indicated by the Chairman of the Arbitration Council Halqa No. 99 the petitioner should pay maintenance to respondent No. 1 at the rate of Rs.500 per month. There will be no order as to costs. S.Q./M‑18/S Appeal allowed.